From: "Anders Sandberg" <asa@nada.kth.se>
> remember that the clipper chip was
> *crushed*. The fact that this idea was defeated once means that it is
> actually going to have a harder time today than it would if it was an
> entirely new concept with a clear background. Sure, it will get a lot of
> help from the current mood, but it is not an irresistible power.
OIC, in that case what you wrote earlier, to wit: "Note that we now are
essentially back to
square one with the clipper chip, but now with the added feature of
global prohibitions and a likely strong support from the public and
politicians" no longer holds. So now we have not much to worry about. Okey
dokey artichokey. (Wish you'd settle on a single position though.)
> Although my ambitious side does like the idea of me and Max being part
> of the controlling group - in this case I guess that would be NIST, NSA
> or some high level court - "infiltrating" them is of course a total pipe
> dream. You won't get a chance to control a technology if you lie about
> your intentions to the surrounding administration.
No need to "lie about your intentions" -- just let them know that you
represent the will of a huge proportion of the general public (which is true).
> Remember, in our kind
> of society you actually have to give reasons for your actions when you
> do them as part of an administration.
Unless, of course, you're the President. hehehe
> A far more realistic approach to stop this technology is to raise hell
> about it - explain to proponents why it won't work and why it will have
> nasty side effects, get the non-initiated to understand what is wrong
> with it and why it should not be supported. Convince other nations to
> not accept the standard. Develop other technologies that makes even the
> introduction of the technology irrelevant. If it is passed, then work
> against the laws, even to the point of civil disobedience.
Now you're talking, and it sounds good.
> Notice that this is messy, real world things that have to be done. There
> is no way of achiving it by wishing for the technology to be in wise
> hands (and mine definitely aren't; I think I could make a fairly nasty
> dictator a la Trevor Goodchild if I got the chance - don't let me!).
I think you're right about the messiness of the undertaking, and thankfully
there are many people who relish the opportunity to get their hands into this
messy project. As for you're aptitude for being a nasty dictator, thanks for
the warning, but it's my experience that folks who indulge in the kind of
self-deprecating comments you've made are usually quite even-handed and fair
in their administration of technological change.
Best wishes,
--J. R.
Useless hypotheses, etc.:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, Cyc, Eliza, cryonics, individual
uniqueness, ego, human values
We won't move into a better future until we debunk religiosity, the most
regressive force now operating in society.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:47 MDT